Obama's rotten climate deal with China

[Derec]

About a week ago, Obama reached a very lopsided deal on climate with China.
White House and China set historic greenhouse emissions levels

Under the deal, the United States would cut its carbon emissions between 26-28% -- from levels established in 2005 -- by 2025. China would peak its carbon emissions no later than 2030 and would also increase the use of non-fossil fuels to 20% by 2030.

In other words, US has to reduce our emissions by quite a bit within 11 years but China is allowed to increase theirs for 16 more years and faces no real reduction targets even after that. It certainly does not seem like a very good deal for the US as it largely lets China off the hook - again.

A good deal would have demanded China take real steps now to reduce their emissions, which are after all highest emissions in the world. If China could not be brought aboard such deal a climate duty on Chinese imports could be imposed whose price is proportional to estimated carbon emissions of the manufacture and transport of the item. That would hurt Chinese exports and would be a good incentive for them to agree to a deal that is not just window dressing.

At the same time, House passed a sort-of bipartisan bipartisan (31 Dems voted aye) Keystone XL bill yet again. Senate is due to vote on it soon but Democrats are set to fillibuster so although there is a solid majority in the Senate that support the passage the prospects are uncertain. In any case, unfortunately Obama indicated he would veto the bill using Tom Steyer talking points. Why do same people who decry the influence of the Koch brothers in politics welcome Steyer's influence?
Of course the Keystone pipeline should have been approved years ago. And if it had been, some of the red state Democrats like Pryor or Begich could have been saved. The uncertain new Senate vote on Keystone XL is ostensibly being done to try to save Mary Landrieu in her upcoming runoff. Of course, had she not been dissed by Harry Reid she would have been in a much better position and may have avoided the runoff in the first place!

Contrary to propaganda, Keystone XL is actually going to lower carbon emissions because the alternative is not sunshine and butterflies but rather moving the stuff by rail which is more energy intensive. The fact is that there isn't enough easy to drill light sweet oil to cover global demand. An increasing fraction of the oil we will use in the coming few decades will be low-grade, tight, and/or difficult to get. Rejecting oil sands because it is dirty would lead one to have to reject heavy Venezuelan oil, deepwater oil and Arctic oil as well. Then how much is left?

 

[dismal]

Well, first this US is already 15% or so below 2005 levels (thanks fracking!) and second since when does anyone ever honor these agreements?

This is domestic politics.

 

[arkirk]

About a week ago, Obama reached a very lopsided deal on climate with China.
White House and China set historic greenhouse emissions levels

Under the deal, the United States would cut its carbon emissions between 26-28% -- from levels established in 2005 -- by 2025. China would peak its carbon emissions no later than 2030 and would also increase the use of non-fossil fuels to 20% by 2030.

In other words, US has to reduce our emissions by quite a bit within 11 years but China is allowed to increase theirs for 16 more years and faces no real reduction targets even after that. It certainly does not seem like a very good deal for the US as it largely lets China off the hook - again.

A good deal would have demanded China take real steps now to reduce their emissions, which are after all highest emissions in the world. If China could not be brought aboard such deal a climate duty on Chinese imports could be imposed whose price is proportional to estimated carbon emissions of the manufacture and transport of the item. That would hurt Chinese exports and would be a good incentive for them to agree to a deal that is not just window dressing.

At the same time, House passed a sort-of bipartisan bipartisan (31 Dems voted aye) Keystone XL bill yet again. Senate is due to vote on it soon but Democrats are set to fillibuster so although there is a solid majority in the Senate that support the passage the prospects are uncertain. In any case, unfortunately Obama indicated he would veto the bill using Tom Steyer talking points. Why do same people who decry the influence of the Koch brothers in politics welcome Steyer's influence?
Of course the Keystone pipeline should have been approved years ago. And if it had been, some of the red state Democrats like Pryor or Begich could have been saved. The uncertain new Senate vote on Keystone XL is ostensibly being done to try to save Mary Landrieu in her upcoming runoff. Of course, had she not been dissed by Harry Reid she would have been in a much better position and may have avoided the runoff in the first place!

Contrary to propaganda, Keystone XL is actually going to lower carbon emissions because the alternative is not sunshine and butterflies but rather moving the stuff by rail which is more energy intensive. The fact is that there isn't enough easy to drill light sweet oil to cover global demand. An increasing fraction of the oil we will use in the coming few decades will be low-grade, tight, and/or difficult to get. Rejecting oil sands because it is dirty would lead one to have to reject heavy Venezuelan oil, deepwater oil and Arctic oil as well. Then how much is left?

Derec: It looks to me like you are still stuck beneath the Big Oil Reality Inversion layer. I am amused that you could get virtually everything in this matter exactly upside down. This pipeline (XL) is for the purpose of getting this liquified bitumen to a coast for marketing to overseas markets, not for meeting Ameica's needs in any way. The mining process to get this oil is dirty on a par with Coal and treats Canadian boreal forests merely as "overburden." You have proven over and over again on this forum that you have problems recognizing crimes of all types, environmental damage, and the fact of global warming. Even you view of the flowers and clover is wrong. Despite the facts, our government is so corrupt, they will probably okay the damned thing. The purpose of this pipeline is to provide a delivery system for the dirtiest oil on the planet and allow massive environmental destruction in Canada with geometric expansion of the tar sands mining projects. Pipelines across Canada will not be happening. You seem unable to grasp the fact we HAVE TO BRING THIS ERA OF POLLUTION TO AN END.

The Trans Canada plan calls for hundreds of square miles of this type of ecosystem destruction....so you are even wrong about the flowers and the clover, not to mention the trees and the human beings.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Well, first this US is already 15% or so below 2005 levels (thanks fracking!) and second since when does anyone ever honor these agreements?

This is domestic politics.

Gotta go with dismal here. These agreement are just lip service.

 

[Derec]

Well, first this US is already 15% or so below 2005 levels (thanks fracking!) and

Do you have a source for that number?
Also I do not think it had anything to do with fracking but rather with economic downturn that started in 2008 and also with more fuel efficient vehicles Americans have been buying lately. Ford Excursions were made until 2005 for example. Hummer stopped production in 2010. Nowadays you can see quite a few Nissan Leafs driving around in Atlanta.

second since when does anyone ever honor these agreements?
This is domestic politics.

These agreements have indeed been difficult to implement in the past.
As you say, it is domestic politics. But it is an international issue as well because you need most countries to do the same thing if you want it to accomplish anything and not damage your environment in the process. That makes it a difficult balancing act to pull off.
However, one of the fatal flaws of Kyoto was that it didn't address countries like China and India despite their high emissions and especially high emission growths. It was signed by US but never ratified by the Senate. Given how lenient this plan is toward China I doubt it will fare any better, although I do not think it's a formal treaty requiring 2/3 of the Senate to pass.

 

[untermensche]

This deal will decrease the rise of US carbon emissions.

How can that be a bad deal?

It will also peak the rise of China's emissions.

How is that bad?

It isn't enough but it is better than the Republican plan, "God will fix it".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trying to compromise with China on the environment is like trying to compromise with the Republicans on not destroying the US Dollar.

 

[dismal]

Do you have a source for that number?

EIA data.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/02/us-co2-emissions-may-drop-to-1990-levels-this-year/#more-66684
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec12_3.pdf

 

[Derec]

Derec: It looks to me like you are still stuck beneath the Big Oil Reality Inversion layer.

Or maybe you are stuck in Ecomentalist Reality Inversion thingamajig.

I am amused that you could get virtually everything in this matter exactly upside down.

Funny. My thinking exactly.

This pipeline (XL) is for the purpose of getting this liquified bitumen to a coast for marketing to overseas markets, not for meeting Ameica's needs in any way.

We have been over this repeatedly. It makes no logistic sense to move oil to Gulf ports, export it all to who knows where, and than import oil from Venezuela etc. through the same port. No, oil sands oil will be processed in US refineries and used to satisfy US market. Only surplus is going to be exported, and that as refined, value added product (meaning refinery jobs) rather than unprocessed crude.

The mining process to get this oil is dirty on a par with Coal

Surface mined oil sands are essentially an open pit mine like thousands all over the world. You compare it with open pit coal mines, but there isn't this sort of kneejerk opposition to coal mines. Or copper mines for that matter.

Surface mining works only on deposits that are very close to the surface. But most deposits are deeper than that and are being processed in situ, which means a lot smaller footprint. Early developments were surface mining but new developments are largely in situ.

and treats Canadian boreal forests merely as "overburden."

The technical term, yes. By the way, oil sands operators are required by law to reclaim the area they have mined after they are done.

You have proven over and over again on this forum that you have problems recognizing crimes of all types, environmental damage, and the fact of global warming.

I recognize the fact of global warming. But I also recognize that we will need to use oil for several more decades even under most optimistic of scenarios. There simply isn't enough easy, conventional oil to satisfy global demand. Low-hanging fruit was understandably picked early on and we are left with much more challenging deposits.

Even you view of the flowers and clover is wrong.

???

Despite the facts, our government is so corrupt, they will probably okay the damned thing.

Again you got it ass backwards. Facts are in favor of the pipeline. And what corruption? Tom Steyer's millions?

The purpose of this pipeline is to provide a delivery system for the dirtiest oil on the planet

Actually the life-cycle difference is not that big and California Heavy is dirtier. Yet both disgraceful California senators are up there right now attacking Canadian oil sands...

and allow massive environmental destruction in Canada with geometric expansion of the tar sands mining projects.

These projects will be done anyway, even if much of the crude has to move by rail. And the fraction of Boreal Forest affected is minuscule and it has to be restored anyway.

Pipelines across Canada will not be happening.

Unfortunately there is misguided opposition to those pipelines as well, especially from Canadian Indians. However, it is hardly a guaranteed thing that these neo-Luddites will prevail, so there is hope.

You seem unable to grasp the fact we HAVE TO BRING THIS ERA OF POLLUTION TO AN END.

You seem unable to grasp the fact that we will need a whole lot of oil during the transition to a post-carbon future.

The Trans Canada plan calls for hundreds of square miles of this type of ecosystem destruction....

TransCanada is a pipeline company. Other companies handle the mining, drilling and processing.

so you are even wrong about the flowers and the clover, not to mention the trees and the human beings.

What are you on about with flowers and clover?

 

[dismal]

What are you on about with flowers and clover?

Flowers and clover like CO2.

 

[RavenSky]

This deal will decrease the rise of US carbon emissions.

How can that be a bad deal?

It will also peak the rise of China's emissions.

How is that bad?

It isn't enough but it is better than the Republican plan, "God will fix it".

^^^ That

 

[bilby]

It is an excellent deal; not because it will achieve enough to be worthwhile (it won't), and not because it is a step in the right direction (although it is). No, this is a superb deal because it made our Prime Minister look like the out-of-step loser and global embarrassment that he is, when he hosted last week's G20 Summit meeting here in Brisbane. Abbott is by far the worst Prime Minister we have had; others have been corrupt, greedy, partisan and/or outright crazy, but only Abbott has managed to be a bumbling fool in such an internationally visible way. He doesn't even have the redeeming feature of a sense of humour to mitigate has most foolish moments - Bob Hawke did and said some silly things, but you would certainly be happy to have a beer with him. With Tony Abbott you would more likely throw a beer over him.

This deal won't fix climate change. But if it helps to ensure that Abbott is 'one term Tony', it will have achieved a lot of good in the world even so.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This deal will decrease the rise of US carbon emissions.

How can that be a bad deal?

It will also peak the rise of China's emissions.

How is that bad?

It isn't enough but it is better than the Republican plan, "God will fix it".

You're dreaming. This agreement isn't going to do anything meaningful because it's not going to be kept by either side.

 

[untermensche]

This deal will decrease the rise of US carbon emissions.

How can that be a bad deal?

It will also peak the rise of China's emissions.

How is that bad?

It isn't enough but it is better than the Republican plan, "God will fix it".

You're dreaming. This agreement isn't going to do anything meaningful because it's not going to be kept by either side.

That is yet to be seen, but even if true it doesn't make it a bad deal.

If somebody cheats on a good deal that doesn't make the deal bad. It makes the cheater bad.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're dreaming. This agreement isn't going to do anything meaningful because it's not going to be kept by either side.

That is yet to be seen, but even if true it doesn't make it a bad deal.

If somebody cheats on a good deal that doesn't make the deal bad. It makes the cheater bad.

The problem is that the deal has no enforcement mechanism. It's a bad deal because it's horrendously weighted in favor of cheating.

We will see the same thing here as with Kyoto--nothing but a lot of hot air.

 

[untermensche]

That is yet to be seen, but even if true it doesn't make it a bad deal.

If somebody cheats on a good deal that doesn't make the deal bad. It makes the cheater bad.

The problem is that the deal has no enforcement mechanism. It's a bad deal because it's horrendously weighted in favor of cheating.

We will see the same thing here as with Kyoto--nothing but a lot of hot air.

Bad deals are deals that make things worse.

Deals that try to make things better are not bad deals.

What is your plan?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is that the deal has no enforcement mechanism. It's a bad deal because it's horrendously weighted in favor of cheating.

We will see the same thing here as with Kyoto--nothing but a lot of hot air.

Bad deals are deals that make things worse.

Deals that try to make things better are not bad deals.

What is your plan?

It does make things worse.

The problem is that once we have a deal it's the answer to climate issues until it's proven not to work. Things like this are nothing but a delaying tactic.

 

[untermensche]

Bad deals are deals that make things worse.

Deals that try to make things better are not bad deals.

What is your plan?

It does make things worse.

The problem is that once we have a deal it's the answer to climate issues until it's proven not to work. Things like this are nothing but a delaying tactic.

So this is your plan?

Claim that any deal with China is a bad deal?

The deal is good.

If it isn't followed, that is bad.

 

[laughing dog]

The problem is that once we have a deal it's the answer to climate issues until it's proven not to work.

That is true of any plan for any problem.

Things like this are nothing but a delaying tactic.

Nonsense. The Chinese were going to do this anyway, so how is it a delaying tactic?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It does make things worse.

The problem is that once we have a deal it's the answer to climate issues until it's proven not to work. Things like this are nothing but a delaying tactic.

So this is your plan?

Claim that any deal with China is a bad deal?

The deal is good.

If it isn't followed, that is bad.

The deal lacks an enforcement mechanism. Thus it will not be followed, it's a bad deal.

Of course nobody is going to agree to something with an enforcement mechanism, that would mean they actually had to follow through.